. : MatthewDallman.com : . The Official Site for Matthew Dallman's Music, Art, & Writing

He has posted a new essay to the web. It has to do with Wilber's novel/book Boomeritis, and the myriad false and/or unproven assertions, distortions of truth, and redundancies. Andrews calls them his "20 Blunders". I personally read Boomeritis once and planned to never read it again. Andrews' essay is another nail in that board. Read it here (via Geoffrey Falk). Excellent stuff.

In my opinion, it is both funny and intellectually rigorous, which is a tough tango to make work, but Andrews succeeds in a very solid way. He also ends with a short list of tips to the Wilber fan who wants to transcend mere Wilber—a list I find to be a good starting point for that endeavor.

(For what it is worth, I would also end all reliance upon Spiral Dynamics, save its use for the barest of introductions to those new to developmental studies and worldviews. Show me the verifiable evidence for SD and I will change this recommendation in a heartbeat).

And just to head off what would be a poor argument against Andrews' piece—yes, of course Wilber's book is an attempt at fiction. But the same intellectual framework that undergirds that books undergirds the last five or so non-fiction books from him. In Boomeritis, Wilber basically created fake characters to mouthpiece the same material from his other books. He created a flimsy narrative to make it seem like his assertions weren't of his own creation. His critiques of postmodernism, narcissism, academia, politics, art, environmentalism, and so on are all found in other works, in much the same language. To claim, "Oh, well Boomeritis is fiction, and Wilber wrote it to be superficial" is beside the point, and is more an indication of the superficial reading of Wilber on the part of those who make this claim. Sorry, try again.

Through the tireless work of Andrews, Falk, other critics such as Mark Edwards, as well as those in the integral blogosphere, we are seeing the further development of something I think is very important—informed, reasoned, and intellectually rigorous skepticism, one that holds Wilber accountable to earn the claims he makes for himself. True skepticism is founded upon an open-mind. Planet-centric skepticism takes it to the next moral level. To hold the perspectives of both an open-mind as well as skeptical mind is, in fact, multi-perspectival in its own right.

This mode, essential to really, really, deal with the implications of an integral worldview, is far beyond some sort of prepersonal 'Kill Mommy' dynamic, and far beyond some sort of sophmoric 'reintegration' of Wilber's ideas, as if those are absolute truths, the coming to terms with is our mere responsibility. Such a 'synthesis' would only be true if Wilber is the equivalent to a guru, and all else are followers, equivalent to a cult. Poppy cock, and the worst of apologetic maneuver. We are all adults here, who have already gone through our Kill Mommy phases when we were, what, 16.

To critique something is to show that, deep down, you care about the subject. To not critique when you know something is off is to be just along for the ride. Critique is essential to the endeavor of truth and validity. You care about getting it right, based on solid reasoning, evidence, and scholarly integrity. To mix in provocative and even challenging language is more risky, but succeeds if the intellectual rigor is stringently maintained. To help the world is not to just ignore when someone, even a philosopher, is in a position of power and, over and over again, gets things wrong, or gets things far too superficial. It is to mention, shout, even scream, Sorry Baldy, but you couldn't be more off.

If you don't care that Wilber contorts the research of others (such as with Abigail Housen) to fit his own model, his own system, his own marketable product, then that is your choice. But you also lose the right to be listened to when you complain when critics point this out, even when they do so with righteous indignation. If it was only indignation, that would be one thing. If critics get too personal with their gibes, however, then a critique of that behavior is, of course, fair game. But, for example in the case of Falk, his indignation is founded upon sincere, reasoned arguments that show where Wilber has made grave errors, the stuff that is inexcusable in conventional intellectual circles. To hold him accountable, given the position he is in, is a moral imperative. To expose holes is the equivalent of a bodhisattva vow, only for scholars. It must be done. There is no choice. And in this case, Jim Andrews has again showed the way.